docs(maker-platform): reconcile PR-FAQ<->memo divergences (illustrative pricing into memo; 'enforces'->'eases')

Superset audit found two real divergences:
- the illustrative all-in fee numbers (5-7%, ~3.6%, 13-16 pts) lived only
  in the PR-FAQ; port them into the memo §2/§7 so the memo stays superset
- PR-FAQ said the checkout 'enforces' the FTC 30-Day Rule; the memo is
  careful that the duty is the maker's and the platform only *eases* it
  (§11) — align the PR-FAQ wording

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md

@@ -359,9 +359,10 @@ flow design that keeps fees low means the network never holds your funds — so
 nothing to refund *from*; escrow was declined deliberately (holding buyer funds is exactly
 what triggers money-transmitter licensing — §11). Your monetary recourse is a
 **chargeback against the maker's own payment processor** (the maker is merchant of
-record), and the platform's compliance-by-design checkout enforces the **FTC 30-Day Rule**
-— a maker who can't ship on time must notify and offer a refund — which is your first
-recourse *before* a chargeback (§11). **Second, the platform's contribution is
+record), and the platform's compliance-by-design checkout **eases the maker's FTC 30-Day
+Rule duty** — prompting the delay notice and one-click cancel/refund when a window slips (the
+duty is the maker's; the platform doesn't assume it) — which is your first recourse *before*
+a chargeback (§11). **Second, the platform's contribution is
 consequence, not insurance.** Non-delivery drops the maker's standing: a **low,
 buyer-visible reputation score** and **loss of all network amplification** (Curated-By, the
 buyer feed, referrals, the agent feed). They keep their storefront, but they fall out of

docs/maker-platform-strategy.md

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ Two maker-commerce-specific accelerants sit on top of the org thesis: **AI shopp
 
 - **The fastest honest path to standing on its own feet.** Running a non-profit and the infrastructure under a platform takes money; commerce is where money moves most, so building close to commerce is the quickest route to a sustainable economic position ([Wiggleverse — why ecomm first](https://wiggleverse.org/ecomm/)). A self-sustaining beachhead is also what funds the rest of the portfolio (the *apps* and *learn* products to come) — the §12 economics read at org scale.
 - **The hardest, most complete test of the thesis.** This product exercises *every* load-bearing Wiggleverse bet at once: **non-extraction** (the out-of-flow, never-GMV-fee stance, §7/§11, *is* the org's "take only what it takes to run"), the **flow/network moat** against eroding incumbents (the §2/§4 thesis and the three moats above), **OHM ethics made concrete** (consent, agency, dignity, value, recourse show up as verification, provenance, and usage-rights — §7/§10/§11), and the **open-core partner ecosystem** (§7 partner network). Prove it here and the rest of the portfolio is de-risked.
-- **The most tangible "give value, not extract" demonstration.** Commerce makes the ethic legible in dollars — *our fee + your processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%* (§7) — so the mission is a number on every sale, not a slogan ("what is enough? — enough to keep the lights on, and no more").
+- **The most tangible "give value, not extract" demonstration.** Commerce makes the ethic legible in dollars — *our fee + your processor ≈ 4–7% vs Etsy's ~20%* (§7) — so the mission is a number on every sale, not a slogan ("what is enough? — enough to keep the lights on, and no more").
 - **"Small businesses are really just people."** Serving independent makers directly *is* the OHM mission — *treat humans as humans* — applied to the place commerce had most thoroughly turned them into accounts and line items.
 
 ---
@@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ Out of the money flow, your fee is a **platform fee billed in arrears via ACH/in
 
 - **Tiered "graduate" pricing.** Starter: $0/low monthly + a modest **percentage** (≈2–4%) on captured orders (cold-start-friendly). Pro: flat **$29–49/mo + 0%** (predictable, easy to collect, at scale). Auto-graduate by GMV so makers don't overpay. Use a **percentage, not a per-order flat fee**, on low-AOV makers (a flat $0.50 over-taxes a $12 item).
 - **Charge on captured/fulfilled orders, not pledges** — don't bill money that never cleared.
-- **Market the all-in transparently:** "our fee + your own processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%." Not bundling processing is the wedge — say it in numbers.
+- **Market the all-in transparently:** "our fee + your own processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%." Not bundling processing is the wedge — say it in numbers. Illustratively (shape, not validated rates): a Starter maker at ~$1,200/mo runs ~2–4% platform + ~3% processor ≈ **5–7%** all-in; a Pro maker at ~$6,000/mo runs $39/mo + ~3% processor ≈ **~3.6%** all-in — versus Etsy's ~20% either way, i.e. the maker keeps roughly **13–16 percentage points more of every sale.**
 
 **Referral economics.** On a referred order, two layers stack. **The platform's spread is fixed and never negotiated** — ≈3–5% of the order (it may scale with the sale and carry a $ cap), the network's one piece of referral revenue, and *the same percentage regardless of which referred item sells* — which is what makes the ranking-neutrality guarantee structural rather than a promise ("Curated By This Maker" above). **Maker A's reward sits above the spread and is the makers' to set:** A and B negotiate it through platform tooling — a flat %, a tiered rate ("x% over $y"), a max-$ cap — and may **renegotiate** as the relationship evolves, with one floor, the spread. So B always pays *at least* the spread; set A's reward to zero and no referral money changes hands while the platform still earns its spread. (This negotiability is **scoped to maker↔maker** referrals; the pure non-maker taste-maker tier keeps **uniform, non-biddable** rates — it lacks the peer-respect counterweight — see "Non-maker referrers" below.) Keep the legs as **two separate events** — B→Platform (a fee on B's invoice) and Platform→A (a credit you extend) — so you're **principal on both sides, never a conduit** moving money B→A. That independence keeps it out of money-transmission territory, and holds *only* while A's credit is non-cashable.